I would assume everywhere highlighted in red on the map I linked (since idk of embedding works on the forum anymore) except for highway 61, where I would assume they plan on using the shoulders as. I believe they plan on adding park and rides (per previously released maps/documents) at the 2nd to last station in WBL, and at highway 36.

Hmm, I didn't catch that. I'm guessing that means taking the bike lanes (shoulders) away on most of Phalen Blvd and saving the mixed use trail for bikes. They'd have to take a lane away over the bridge between Cayuga and Olive, though.

I live along the line (sort of, would be a long walk) and I have no desire for this line. the 54 extension does MOST of the job and will be implemented THIS YEAR. I work in Minneapolis and I've said it before, I think that the number of riders from Maplewood Mall to Mpls (270) far outweighs the MM to St Paul (265), and this is shown in the express frequencies.

270 - freq 5-15 mins.
265 - freq 30 mins

I live near it too, and I am in support of running the BRT down the Vento. I had actually wanted to buy a house along the Vento trail as I use it frequently for biking, and would certainly use it to go downtown St Paul, which I do often.

If you live near this line and work in MPLS, I don't see how you can argue with something that will connect you to the Green Line at Robert Street without going into downtown. This would be a very serious improvement for those of us near a stop.

It would take FOREVER to take this down to St Paul, then Green Line to Minneapolis. Currently I take the 270 from Maplewood Mall P&R to IDS in 35-40 min.

Without the numbers of Rush Line right in front of me, let's say it takes 30 mins from Maplewood Mall to Robert St, then a 5 min layover, then it is 35 mins from Robert St to Nicollet Mall. (Which is not quite as central, especially for me in LaSalle Plaza.) adding additional walktime 5 min to IDS.

^Big difference between someone within convenient distance of the Maplewood P&R and someone who lives, say, five minutes' walk from the station at Payne. The 54 extension wouldn't do anything for that person.

Hmm, I didn't catch that. I'm guessing that means taking the bike lanes (shoulders) away on most of Phalen Blvd and saving the mixed use trail for bikes. They'd have to take a lane away over the bridge between Cayuga and Olive, though.

I just checked, and the section of Phalen they highlighted from Arcade St to Jackson St (at which point it's name has changed to Pennsylvania Ave) has 2 travel lanes in each direction, so I'd bet on them taking over the existing travel lanes there.

On Jackson St there's only 1 travel lane per direction, so they'd use the parking lanes.

On Olive St, University Ave, Lafayette Rd, and County Rd D they would also take travel lanes (like Phalen).

Idk how they plan on rededicating space on highway 61 though, as there's a lot of turn lanes.

I very much doubt that they would take away travel lanes from Phalen Blvd. For one thing, the Port Authority would go nuts. And at least one of those parking lanes on Jackson is already earmarked for some absolutely critical bike lanes.

This could be a case of planning committees not talking to planning committees. Everybody just looks at what's currently there and thinks "hey extra room, let's use it." Not realizing there are 2 plans in the works for the same space.

How far north is Jackson going to be rebuilt? The pavement between University and Pennsylvania looks pretty poor. Lots of space to increase width in that stretch except the one block between Pennsylvania and Mt. Airy/Winter.

The current Jackson rebuild (w/ the CCB) is only as far north as University. But the rest of Jackson (Uni to Acker and north of Maryland) is scheduled for reconstruction by the county in 2020. There might be some room on the east side of Jackson from Uni -> Winter, but messing with that steep grade might require some expensive retaining walls. On that short stretch from Winter/Mt. Airy to Pennsylvania there isn't a ton of room on either side.

There is too much focus on Minneapolis, without realizing that not everyone has the need or desire to go there! I chose to live in Maplewood (as opposed to, say, Robbinsdale) because it is close to St. Paul, but I digress. People using this line won't be using it to take to Minneapolis, so I am not sure why that is even being discussed. They will be taking it to St. Paul. The options for going to St. Paul aren't great - you have either the 64 which is slow with frequent stops or you have the 265 (?) which is geared toward commuters doing the P&R, but it doesn't actually go throigh areas where people live so it will not get the ridership the way the Rush Line can.

Judging by the anecdotal sentiment I see on NextDoor, I'd say support seems to be 50/50. From what I have read, the people who don't want it seem to arrogantly think they speak for everyone else, and the people who do want it (not just me) keep saying they would use it because it is so much more convenient than other options.

For me, it just comes down to the cost. $600 million (or whatever it ends up) for a BRT line seems REALLY high. Let's make more lines high frequency and utilize the 54 extension that accomplishes most of what is desired.

Think of it this way, metro transit says they can't add card readers at rear doors because it would be 900k for just the articulated buses. But we can spend $600 million on one bus line. I'd rather see the whole system improved for the money.

For me, it just comes down to the cost. $600 million (or whatever it ends up) for a BRT line seems REALLY high.

It's $400 million total. Half of it is paid by the federal government, making the local match $200M. Ramsey County is getting another $42 million a year from the 1/4 cent sales tax increase, so they'll have $84M income each year. $10M of that goes towards the green line's operating costs annually. So Ramsey County can pay for this in like 3 years. Ramsey County's share of Gateway will take 1.5 years. Full route 54 abrt can be done with the other half year.

Riverview LRT may break the bank though, since Ramsey County has to pay for 90% of the local match. Once these are running Ramsey County also has to pay for half (or maybe all) of the operating costs too.